Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this next petition from people in my riding pointing out that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has travelled to other parts of the world to promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.

These petitioners wish to advise the House of Commons and the Leader of the Official Opposition that the majority of residents of Ottawa-Carleton wish to promote Quebec's continued participation in the Confederation of Canada and call on Parliament to inform the Leader of the Opposition that he is not representing the majority of their views.

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from constituents, over 100 signatures, in support of amending legislation to allow people to refuse advertising flyers at their homes in the interests of the environment, and to return them postage paid to the sender.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present two petitions. In the first petition 189 constituents from British Columbia request that Parliament refuse to accept the justice minister's anti-firearms proposals. They insist that he bring forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition petitioners from B.C.'s lower mainland pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

The first petition is signed by 189 residents and warns that the justice minister is proposing unfair anti-gun legislation that will do little if anything to reduce violent crime in Canada.

The petitioners feel that this legislation will simply restrict or eliminate the rights of honest law-abiding hunters and target shooters. The petitioners request that Parliament call on the justice minister to bring forward proposals that will enable the police and courts to deal quickly and firmly with perpetrators of all types of violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 176 residents and draws the attention of the House to the rise in youth crime, the lack of deterrents and accountability in the Young Offenders Act, the fact that the Young Offenders Act does not address the rights of victims and encourages the recruitment of youth by adult offenders, and that the present sentencing provisions of the Young Offenders Act ignore public support for tougher laws.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to urge the government to review the Young Offenders Act and address three principles: the deterrence of the offender, the accountability of the offender, and the rights of the victim.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit three petitions on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso. They relate to the devastation of the Atlantic groundfish industry caused by the seals and the fact that the seal industry has declined because of the European attitudes toward seals.

Now that the groundfish stocks have declined, they urge the government to recognize the opportunity presented by the huge seal populations and designate herds for use as viable entrepreneurial resources.

How many public interventions have been made by current federal cabinet ministers in connection with the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown agreement, how many have there been in favour of the Meech Lake accord, how many were against and who gave them, how many have there been in favour of the Charlottetown agreement, how many were against and who gave them?

The Government's administrative responsibilities began on November 4, 1993. In the period since that date, constitutional reform has not been part of the government's legislative or policy agenda, nor has it been discussed with the governments of the provinces, with the exception of the bilateral amendment to the 1873 Terms of Union with Prince Edward Island respecting a fixed link between the Island and New Brunswick. The amendment was proclaimed on April 15, 1994.

Mr. Speaker, when we left off before question period, I was saying a few words on regional economic development and the importance of consulting.

I would like to expand upon the significance of the consultations that will be conducted across Canada. I think that the first point we should recognize-and I think this is a common theme for all members of this Parliament-is the urgent need for new job qualifications.

There is a second one: How to adapt to changing world conditions. The third point would be to redesign the role of the State; fourth, to put the economy back on track and, fifth, create a better, sounder economic climate.

The purpose of these consultations is obviously a thorough examination of where this Canadian federation is headed, where the government of Canada is going and how we can contribute to the development of our region, including the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The first theme, for example, is about acquiring skills. I think it is important to recognize that, in my region and in Quebec in general, many young people do not complete Secondary V, that the government has an important role to play to encourage not only young people, but also education institutions and the private sector to become partners in giving a boost to youth education, as this is the only way out.

As for the second theme, namely adapting to a changing world, it is obvious that the world is very different today from what it was between 1945 and 1960. Today, we recognize the emergence of countries such as Korea and Taiwan.

I was not talking about Japan or China, but we are certainly living in an era of market globalization. This requires not only a lot of thinking but also a great deal of preparation. I think that if we as Canadians, especially those in the regions, want to become part of the new global market, we must equip ourselves.

Above all, the federal government wants Canadians to think up ways to make the most of these global markets.

The third theme is rethinking the role of government. Back in the days before deficits, the government could do anything. In fact, all levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-never hesitated to take action to help the people, to tell them what to do and how to do it.

In the regions, for example, programs were introduced by the Government of Canada in co-operation with the Quebec government and the local authorities. They did not always succeed. True, a number of them failed. Unfortunately, these old formulas obviously no longer work. That is why we are seeking a new approach, or a new partnership.

When we ask the government to act at the local level, it is mostly to encourage small business to create jobs. It is no longer up to the government to do that. We have to find the financial resources, the financial levels to encourage small businesses to take themselves in hand, to consult the people around them, to set a local policy in line with the provincial policy and a Canada-wide national policy.

I think it is important to underline the Canada-wide aspect because many of Quebec's exchanges depend on Canada as a whole. I think that Quebec is very dependent on a healthy, vibrant Canada with an ever-growing economy.

If we promote the separation of powers or if Quebec leaves the Canadian federation, it is likely that a Canada divided from East to West with its Quebec cornerstone missing will surely experience medium and long-term problems.

It is in the interest of Quebecers, and even in the interest of the opposition, that Quebec remains a vibrant part of the Canadian federation.

The opposition talks about putting the economy back on track and restoring confidence among business people. But let us not forget that this confidence can only exist if Canada remains a united country. The opposition keeps saying that the Canadian federation no longer works; but Canada is a member of the G-7. I know that we are experiencing economic difficulties, but Pierre Bourgault said not too long ago that Quebec's separation would be costly, even if it helps promote sectors others than the economy.

According to Mr. Bourgault, a staunch nationalist and the founder of the RIN, Quebecers will be worse off if they become independent. What do we propose in terms of consultations to reform the federation? After all, the Canadian federation allows administrative agreements. There are hundreds of such agreements with the provinces, including Quebec. This is what federalism is all about and let us not forget that because it is the only solution.

My time is almost up, but I would like to say a few words about the new tax measures, not only between the federation and the provinces, and I think we can redefine existing arrangements and find an adequate process at the regional level. In fact, this was done numerous times at the regional level, including in the Lower St. Lawrence region and in the Gaspe peninsula, thanks to the direct involvement of the federal government.

I should mention the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, as well as the initiatives taken by the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, which is under the Minister of Finance's authority. Thanks to their specific and direct actions, small businesses were often able to get back on their feet, to expand and to gain access to markets not only in Quebec and in Canada, but also overseas, including in Europe and, recently, in Asia.

It goes without saying that the tax measures to be proposed will be based on this comprehensive consultation exercise, which will include everyone, including urban and rural dwellers, members of the opposition, academics and business leaders, and which will ensure economic recovery for Canada. It is not good to hear that Quebec can separate and go it alone. In fact, the contrary is true and Quebecers are aware that our federation has worked well for 125 years. We can get along and we can develop a lasting economy. I also believe that we will enter the next century united, together. Only through the Canadian federation will Quebecers make it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's comments. I was most interested when, speaking about SMEs, he said that we should promote a climate of confidence to allow SMEs to invest and create more jobs.

Here is my question. About 15 days ago, in the shadow of Parliament, a committee unknown to most of my colleagues opposed a plan by some Liberal members that would have created uncertainty about possible pharmaceutical investments. It was about the former Bill C-91. I would like to know what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine thinks about these investments which are not being made today because of the uncertainty created by the government. This costs a lot in money, millions of dollars, and some very well-paid jobs are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite understands pretty well what is at stake here. The contribution of the federal government in Quebec, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, has been quite obvious.

First there was Bill C-22, then Bill C-97, and I think that there is still a commitment to maintain this policy, as stated in Bill C-91, in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.

There is no doubt that Montreal's economy depends a lot on these technologies. The opposition is finally recognizing that, with this federal policy, we have been able to concentrate this high-tech industry in Montreal and in the province of Quebec.

Of course, if Quebec were to become independent or to secede, these companies would most probably decide to leave Quebec and settle elsewhere. After all, the main concern of these companies is, first, to enjoy a climate of confidence, but also to have the assurance that the federal government will protect their market and maintain the criteria that are so important for the pharmaceutical companies that want to stay in Quebec to grow and prosper.

The issue of confidence should not be overlooked. Any investor would tell you how important political stability is. The industry needs to know that the country will support it, in spite of all the problems we have. As you know, we went through some tough times after the Second World War, when the debt level per capita was very high in Canada, but we came through. The people looked to the future with confidence. They saw there was a lot they could do together. However, by dividing Canada, with Quebec going its own way, we will unfortunately lose not only some tax benefits similar to those provided for in Bill

C-91, but also the advantage of belonging to an economic partnership that has, in fact, proven itself.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is so concerned about the economic development in Quebec, in Canada, even throughout the world, if he is equally concerned about the economic development in the Magdalen Islands. I would like to know if he is at all concerned, for example, by what was reported today in the editorial pages of his local newspaper, that is, that the Minister of Environment appeared all confused on TV about the Irving Whale story, saying that both the booms and the boat needed to scoop up the oil in case of a catastrophe were also at the bottom of the water.

Is he not concerned to see that his minister does not seem to understand this issue which is so crucial for the economic future and tourism of the Magdalen Islands, a situation which could cause one of the worst ecological catastrophes in the area, and should he not see to it that the Irving Whale be refloated in a more competent manner than that described by the Minister of Environment? I am wondering if he is really concerned about economic development or if he is content to merely repeat day after day in the House the rhetoric and buzzwords he has memorized, along with some rather strange items.

So, I put the question to him, because I think that what is happening in the Magdalen Islands is very serious and that he should take his work seriously and not only make beautiful speeches he has learned by heart. The issue of the Irving Whale is a serious issue for the people of the Magdalen Islands and for all Quebecers. So, what does the hon. member answer to that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that at last the opposition shows some interest in the regions, especially the Magdalen Islands. I wish to inform the hon. member that it is Patrick Gagnon, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and my colleague from Malpeque who informed the media of the importance and the danger of the Irving Whale even before the Minister of Environment knew about it.

The environment minister, the transport minister and the Government of Canada gave their support. They recognized that it was important to raise that ship which sank about 20 years ago. You can be sure that I personally am perfectly aware of the importance of refloating that wreck. But anyway, I thank the member opposite for showing interest because we must not forget that it is no thanks to the Bloc that the operation went ahead, or that we could interest the federal government in that wreck.

We took action. I consulted with my colleague from Malpeque and the people last February and believe me, the priority of the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is not only the economic development of the islands, but also the integrity of their environment because I think that it is shared by everybody. Despite the opposition's denials, the government takes care of its business and, unfortunately, the opposition just discovered a threat to the environment that has been there for some time.

It is unfortunate that the opposition did not co-operate with us during the consultations. All it could do was find fault and play petty politics at the expense of the Magdalen Islanders and the environmental health of the islands.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief even though there are many things I would have liked to say. First of all, with all due respect, I would like to tell the House that it is not the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine or the member from Prince Edward Island who alerted the medias. It is the veterinarian in the Magdalen Islands who made the public and the government aware of the situation.

The second thing I would like to say is why did the government not conduct a public hearing on this matter? The member took it upon himself to act in this regard and then the minister made the announcement that there were two or three projects to raise the Irving Whale .

But what the public wants is for the hold of this ship to be emptied in order to prevent a disaster. The federal government's mandate with regard to regional development is to ensure that our water is clean so that tourists will continue to come and enjoy the beaches in the Magdalen Islands. That is what regional development is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I are very sensitive to the environment in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. I must tell you something. I came here as a member of Parliament on November 1. In the first week of February, just two months later, I organized town hall meetings in the Magdalen Islands and in Prince Edward Island. I think I carried out my duty as a member of Parliament to defend and promote the interests of my constituents. Surely, I am the most directly concerned and would want to be the first to know, if something went wrong with that operation, that we will be made aware of the fact.

In conclusion, we consulted with the population. It is true that others showed us that there was a problem. But the issue had been talked about for some twenty years in Prince Edward Island. It is thanks to the co-operation from the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island that we will raise the Irving Whale , and thanks to this Liberal government and also, obvious-

Over the last month dozens of Canadians have come before the finance committee to tell us what their priorities are for the next budget. Just about every conceivable position has been expressed as to what should and should not be done. The prebudget consultations have demonstrated one very important point: that a consensus does exist among Canadians on the need to eliminate the deficit. It is no longer a question of whether, it is a question of how and when.

Last week I and one of my colleagues did something unique. We asked to make a presentation to our own committee. In that presentation we laid out a very clear goal to eliminate the deficit over a three year period. We listed 25 specific examples of expenditure reductions or cuts that could be made in order to move toward our goal.

We did not attempt to hide the truth from Canadians in a political or any other way. We levelled with them and told them this would mean cuts of approximately $25 billion after a revenue growth of some $15 billion to $16 billion to reduce our $40 billion current deficit. That would mean that $12 billion to $16 billion, most likely $15 billion, would have to come from social programs over a three year period, not all in one year but over a three year period.

We did not have to do this. We did not have to use this approach. Politically it would have been a lot easier to say nothing and then criticize the government when it released its budget. This is what most opposition or traditional parties have done over the years in their adversary role. That is the kind of game which is usually played. I am sure the members of the government who were in the last House were the best players in that type of game.

Reform members did not come to Ottawa to play games. Our country's finances are too important. They have become our number one priority in our pursuit and our objective in this House of Commons and in this term of Parliament. We came here to change the way politics are done in this country.

The proposal we made to the committee was not a superficial one. We began working on this project immediately following the government's last budget. Over a period of nine months the critics in the Reform Party have reviewed every government program in their area of responsibility. They have weighed those programs against five basic principles that were articulated in our presentation. This represents our best effort in proposing a constructive alternative to the government's fiscal agenda.

In the 10 minutes I have at this time I would like to look at the government's reaction to this presentation. In particular I want to address two specific criticisms that were levelled against us by government and other members of the finance committee. It is important to talk about these criticisms because they go right to the heart of what distinguishes the Reform Party from the governing party.

First I would like to address the question put to me by the member for St. Paul's who simply asked where I was coming from. That was an easy question. Our proposals and recommendations are driven by our conviction that the government's plan to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1997 will not be enough to control or regain the control over our debt. We recognize even in the 3 per cent program the accumulated debt at the end of three years will be far over $600 billion.

What I think he really meant to ask was not so much where the Reform Party was coming from as where it is going. Everyone recognizes that eliminating the deficit in three years is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. What is that end for Reform? What is our vision of Canada?

Surprisingly in comparing what the government said in its grey book to what Reform said in its presentation to the finance committee not much difference will be found in terms of their fiscal and economic analysis. In fact the government's grey book is probably closer to the Reform position than it is to the red book that the Liberals campaigned on in 1993.

However there are some very fundamental differences in terms of our perspective of Canada. Reformers argue for less government involvement in the economy, for lower taxes, and for giving greater flexibility to local and provincial governments. The Liberals we believe are afraid of these proposals. Why? Where Reformers believe in empowering people, the Liberals still believe in empowering the bureaucrats. Where Reformers place their faith in individuals, the Liberals still place their faith in government. While the Liberals do not seem to think Canadians can take care of themselves, we believe they can.

While it is important to know what Canada's political parties believe in and what their vision is, they should not distract us from the more immediate problem, one which has nothing to do with partisan affiliation or political vision: the problem of our debt. It is a major problem.

The debt is sucking the life out of this country. It is killing jobs. It is killing innovation and entrepreneurship. It is killing our social safety net and our health care system. It does not care about politics. It does not set priorities. It does not discriminate against one problem or favour another. It is an equal opportunity killer and it will kill this country unless we do something to stop it. If we do not deal with the debt before our creditors deal with us, then Canada as we know it will cease to exist.

This brings me to the second criticism of our presentation. This one really upsets me. It was the contention that our 25 deficit cutting recommendations and the $12 billion to $16 billion of social program spending must be cut over the next three years. Committee members and others have said that somehow this is an abdication of our social responsibility to Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reformers did not come to Ottawa to take away the bread from starving children. We did not come here to dismantle social programs and leave the vulnerable and the unfortunate in our society unprotected and uncared for. The debate is over how and when to eliminate the deficit. It is not about which party cares the most for Canadians. We all care. The debate is about doing what has to be done. The Reform Party is not going to apologize for telling Canadians the truth.

The truth is that social programs will have to be cut. The some $67 billion expended in that area will have to be reduced to some $50 billion to $60 billion whether we like it or not. If our social safety net collapses because of the failure of the government to plan for the future and doing what has to be done now, those most vulnerable will be the first to suffer and will suffer the most.

Members of the government say it is Reformers who have abdicated their social responsibilities to Canadians, but who has been in power for over a year and done nothing in that time to deal with the debt that is killing this country? In three years this government will have allowed our stock of debt to grow by another $97 billion. If Canada hits the wall, whose conscience will that be on? When international creditors tell the Canadian government and I say tell, not ask, who will be responsible? When international creditors tell a future Canadian government that they will only lend it money if it slashes every program across the board by 30 to 40 per cent, then who will have abdicated their social responsibility to Canadians?

At the present time we have been given an opportunity to put our fiscal house in order. While I do not pretend in any way that this will be easy, there are promising signs. The economy is expanding and Canadians from coast to coast have been telling us they are ready for the cuts. Some will debate whether or not this is Canada's best opportunity to eliminate the debt. I believe this is the proper time to do it.

We have a very simple choice: Either we decide where and how we will cut or somebody will decide that for us. If the government allows the latter to happen, it will be no consolation for me to point out which party truly abdicated its social responsibility for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not think that if we cut government spending too quickly given that government spending makes part of overall aggregate demand on the economy that it would slow down growth and perhaps put us into a recession?

Mr. Speaker, as Reformers we do not believe that. The total gross domestic product of Canada is around $750 billion. Out of that gross domestic product we intend to take out in terms of debt reduction or expenditure reduction some $25 billion in total.

That is somewhat of a hiccup in the total overall scene. We do not think it will have a significant effect on any kind of economic growth. We do believe that type of action will create confidence in the economy, more growth in the economy, more job opportunities and certainly it will be better for Canada as a whole on a longer term.